Division 


Sccti 


oil 


DEC  19  19: 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE   AUTHORSHIP 

OF 

ISAIAH  XIII-XIV. 

BY 

W.  M.  McPHEETERS. 


FROM  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY, 
APRIL,  1894. 


DEC  19  1925 


%flCfAL  11'^^ 


II.  DR.  DRIVER  ON   THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH 
XIII.  AND  XIY. 

On  first  reading  Dr.  Driver's  argument  for  the  non-Isaianic  au- 
thorship of  these  chapters,  one  is  apt  to  find  himself  saying,  in 
the  words  of  Agrippa,  "  Almost  thou  persuadest  me."  This  is 
the  more  likely  to  be  the  case  if  he  has  read  the  preceding  pages 
of  Dr.  Driver's  able  book ;  for  then  he  will  come  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  discussion  of  this  particular  question,  impressed  not 
only  with  the  extent  of  Dr.  Driver's  learning  and  the  accuracy  of 
his  scholarship,  but,  what  is  of  much  more  importance,  impressed 
also  with  his  candor  and  evident  intention  to  deal  reverently  with 
God's  word.  Further,  he  can  scarcely  fail  to  perceive  that  there 
is  not  a  little  justice  in  the  views  advanced  in  regard  to  the  rela- 
tion between  a  prophecy  and  its  historical  genesis,  and  that  these 
views,  judiciously  applied,  are  capable  of  yielding  the  happiest  re- 
sults. This  favorable  impression,  moreover,  will  remain  and 
exert  its  powerful  influence,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
reader  may  have  observed  all  along  that  Dr.  Driver  habitually 
overlooks  or  discards  considerations  which  may  seem  to  liim  to  be 
of  prime  importance.  If,  under  such  circumstances,  the  "  almost  " 
fails  to  become  an  "  altogether,"  the  fault  may  lie  in  tlie  preju- 
dices or  the  unreasonable  fears  of  the  reader,  but  it  is  also  at 
least  possible  that  it  may  lie  in  some  weak  link  in  the  argument 
that  has  been  overlooked  by  Dr.  Driver. 

Now,  the  present  writer,  after  patient  and  candid  study,  finds 
himself  unable  to  accept  Dr.  Driver's  conclusion  as  to  the  non- 
Isaianic  authorship  of  these  chapters.  He  at  least  persuades  him- 
self that  his  abiding  conviction  that  Isaiah,  and  not  some  unknown 
writer  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  is  their  author,  is  due  not  to  pre- 
judice. On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  him  that  Dr.  Driver's  own 
principles  and  formal  admissions  demand  a  conclusion  the  very 
opposite  of  that  at  which  that  distinguished  scholar  has  arrived. 
Let  us  see 


188  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

The  following  extract '  will  put  the  reader  in  possession  of  Dr. 
Driver's  statement  of  the  case  : 

"  The  first  of  these  prophecies  is  one  on  Babylon  (xiii.  2-xiv. 
23),  which  differs  from  all  the  other  prophecies  of  Isaiah  which 
have  hitherto  been  reviewed,  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  that 
it  stands  unrelated  to  Jsaiali's  own  age.  The  Jews  are  not 
warned,  as  Isaiah  might  warn  them  (xxxix.  6),  against  the  folly 
of  concluding  an  alliance  with  Babylon,  or  reminded  of  the  disas- 
trous consequences  which  such  an  alliance  might  entail ;  nor  are 
they  even  represented,  as  in  Jeremiah,  as  threatened  with  im- 
pending exile ;  they  are  represented  as  in  exile,  and  as  about  to 
be  delivered  from  it  (xiv.  1,  2),  It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  pro- 
phecy to  address  itself  to  the  needs  of  the  prophet's  own  age ;  it 
was  the  prophet's  ofiice  to  preach  to  his  own  contemporaries,  to 
announce  to  them  the  judgments,  or  the  consolations,  which  arose 
out  of  the  circumstances  of  their  own  time,  to  interpret  for  them 
their  own  history.  As  far  as  we  have  hitherto  gone,  this  is  what 
Isaiah  has  uniformly  done.  His  prophecies  have  been  replete 
with  allusions  to  contemporary  history — to  Ephraim,  Damascus, 
and  the  Assyrians.  That  history  is  the  foundation  upon  which 
his  grandest  predictions  rest.  Here,  on  the  other  hand,  the  allu- 
sions are  not  to  Assyria,  but  to  Bahjlon;  not  the  Babylon  of 
Merodach-Baladan,  who  sought  Ilezekiah's  friendship,  which  was 
known  to  Isaiah  (xxxix.),  but  the  Babylon  of  the  exile,  which  held 
the  Jews  in  cruel  bondage  (xiv.  2,  3),  and  was  shortly  to  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  Medcs  (xiii.  17).  To  base  a  promise  upon  a  con- 
dition of  things  not  yet  existent,  and  without  any  point  of  contact 
or  association  with  those  to  wlioin  it  is  addressed,  is  alien  to  the 
genius  of  prophecy.  .  .  .  With  the  long  invective  against  Babylon 
contained  in  these  chapters  of  Jeremiah  {i.  e.,  chapters  1.,  li.),  the 
present  prophecy  is,  indeed,  in  temper  and  spirit,  remarkably 
akin;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  it  exhibits  few  or  none  of  the 
accustomed  marks  of  Isaiah's  style." 

Again,  in  another  place,"  he  says : 

"  The  first  of  these  prophecies  consists  of  an  announcement  of 
the  approaching  fall  of  Babylon  (xiii.  19),  and  of  the  subsequent 

>  Isaiah :  His  Life  and  Times.  By  Rev.  S.  A.  Driver.  D.  D.,  p.  85  f.     » Ibid.,  p.  126  f. 


DK.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH   XIII.   AND  XIV.       189 

release  of  the  Jews  (xiv,  1,  2)  from  the  land  of  their  exile.  The 
reasons  which  forhid  onr  attributing  it  to  Isaiah  have  been  stated 
briefly  already  (p.  86).  The  prophet  is,  in  the  first  instance,  tlie 
teacher  of  his  own  generation  ;  lience  it  is  a  fundamental  principle 
of  prophecy  that  the  historical  situation  of  the  prophet  should  be 
the  basis  of  his  prediction.  Isaiah  lived  during  the  Assyrian  su- 
premacy;  and  it  is  the  faihire  of  a  pur th alar  Astiyrian  king  to 
destroy  or  sul)jugate  Judah  which  he  uniformly  foretells.  In  the 
present  prophecy  Babylon  is  re))resented  as  holding  the  empire  of 
the  world  (xiii.  19 ;  xiv.  6f.),  which  it  exercises  in  particular  (xiv. 
1,  2)  hy  holding  the  Jews  in  exile  ;  and  it  is  the  city  and  emjnre 
of  Babylon  whose  overthrow  is  announced  in  it.  By  analogy  it 
will  have  been  written  during  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  su- 
premacy ;  for  it  is  arbitrary  to  suppose  (as  has  been  done)  tliat 
Babylon  may  have  been  mentioned  by  Isaiah  as  the  '  representa- 
tive '  of  Assyria.  Not  only  does  Babylon  appear  here  as  the  sole 
and  supreme  seat  of  the  world  empire,  but  Babylon,  in  Isaiah's 
day,  so  far  from  being  the  representative  of  Assyria,  was  its  an- 
tagonist, ever  struggling  to  win  independence  (pp.  45,  55,  96). 
Moreover,  the  two  empires  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  are  quite  dis- 
tinct in  tlie  old  Testament ;  the  role  which  they  play  in  iiistory  is 
very  different;  they  are  never  confused,  still  less  'identified,'  by 
the  prophets.  The  embassy  of  Merodach-Baladan,  tlie  temporary 
king  of  Babylon,  to  Hezekiah,  afforded  Isaiah  a  substantial  motive 
for  announcing  a  future  exile  to  Babylon.  It  could  supply  no 
motive  for  such  a  promise  of  subsequent  return  from  exile  as 
these  chapters  contain.  The  circumstances  of  the  exile — wliile 
the  Jews  were  still  in  bondage,  and  the  power  of  Babylon  seemed 
yet  unshaken — constitute  a  suitable  and  suflicient  occasion  for  the 
present  prophecy,  an  occasion  of  exactly  the  nature  which  tlie 
analogy  of  prophecy  demands.  On  the  other  hand,  the  circum- 
stances of  Isaiah's  age  supply  no  such  occasion It  only 

remains  to  add  (for  tlie  purpose  of  obviating  misconception)  that 
in  assigning  the  prophecy  to  a  date  during  the  exile,  we  do  not 
divest  it  of  its /?re<//6'^a'e  character;  it  becomes  no  vaticiniuni  ex 
eventu.  The  language  of  chapter  xiii.  makes  it  certain  that  it  was 
written  prior  to  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  in  538. 
13 


190  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

Written  some  few  years  before  this  event,  it  would  be  as  fully  and 
truly  predictive  as  were  Isaiah's  prophecies  of  the  failure  of  Sen- 
nacherib (chaps,  xxix.-xxxii.),  wliich,  indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  pre- 
ceded the  event  by  not  more  than  a  single  year." 

This  is  substantially  Dr.  Driver's  latest  word  upon  this  subject. 
It  is  unmodified  by  anything  that  he  has  said  in  his  recent  work 
on  Old  Testament  Literature.  We  have  quoted  thus  at  length  in 
order  that  Dr.  Driver  might  have  the  full  benefit  of  his  argument, 
and  we,  the  full  benefit  of  his  admissions. 

I,  In  considering  the  above  extracts,  we  desire  tlie  reader's 
attention,  first  of  all,  to  some  things  wliich  do  not  constitute  the 
grounds  upon  which  Dr.  Driver  feels  constrained  to  reject  the 
Isaianic  authorship  of  these  chapters.  Attention  to  this  point  is 
a  matter  of  justice  to  Dr.  Driver.  It  may  also  prove  to  be  a 
matter  of  importance  in  justifying  the  conclusion  at  which  we 
hope  to  arrive  as  against  Dr.  Driver. 

(a.)  Let  it  be  carefully  noted,  then,  that  Dr.  Driver  does  not 
deny  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  the  chapters  in  question,  because 
tiie  recognition  of  it  would  carry  along  with  it  the  recognition  of 
the  siipernatural  in  history  and  revelation.  If  we  understand 
Dr.  Driver,  he  admits  not  only  that  God  may  interpose  in  human 
afi^airs,  but  he  distinctly  atfirms  that  God  did  interpose,  and  that, 
too,  directly  and  immediately,  in  the  afiairs  of  Israel.  He  believes 
not  only  in  the  supernatural  in  general,  but  also  in  the  super- 
natural in  the  form  of  miracles.  If  we  do  not  misconceive  him, 
lie  has  no  more  diflficulty  about  admitting  a  miracle  in  the  sphere 
of  mind  than  one  in  that  of  matter.  What  he  insists  upon,  and 
this  is  scarcely  a  matter  for  censure,  is  that  before  a  divine  inter- 
position be  admitted  it  should  be  shown  that  there  is  "  dignus 
vindice  nodus.''''  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  Dr.  Driver,  and 
other  of  his  fellow-workers,  should  so  express  themselves  as  to 
create  the  impression  upon  many  minds  that  they  either  have 
already,  or  else  are  just  about,  to  surrender  their  belief  in  the 
supernatural.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  Dr.  Driver 
believes  in  the  supernatural.  Ho  is  entitled  to  credit  for  this 
fact  as  a  matter  of  personal  justice,  and  we  are  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  it  as  a  matter  of  argument.     For  proven  the  " noduSy'* 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.   AND  XIV.       191 

then,  Dr.  Driver  cannot,  upon  his  own  principle,  refuse  to  admit 
the  ^^vindexy 

{h.)  He  does  not  deny  it,  because  to  admit  it  would  be  to  admit 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  predictive  prophecy  in  the  strict  and 
proper  sense.  Dr.  Driver  himself  believes  in  predictive  pro- 
phecy, and  that,  too,  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense,  namely,  as 
involving  the  announcement  of  an  event  still  future,  the  occur- 
rence of  which  could  only  be  foreseen  by  God,  and  the  announce- 
ment of  which,  upon  the  part  of  the  prophet,  is  only  to  be 
explained  upon  the  ground  that  he  has  learned  it  by  a  direct 
revelation  from  God.  We  say  that  Dr.  Driver  believes  in  pre- 
dictive prophecy  in  this  sense.  Our  warrant  for  the  statement  is, 
that  he  himself  says  that  he  does. 

(c.)  lie  does  not  deny  it,  l)ecause  to  admit  it  would  be  to  admit 
that  a  prophet  might  predict  a  definite  event  belonging  to  the 
distant  future,  that  is,  lying  entirely  beyond  his  own  time's  hori- 
zon— lying  beyond  it,  we  mean,  in  the  sense  that  there  was  no- 
thing in  the  political  or  moral  situation,  as  it  presented  itself  to  the 
natural  eye  of  the  prophet  or  his  contemporaries,  to  suggest,  still 
less  to  justify,  the  prediction  of  the  occurrence  of  the  particular 
event  predicted.  Dr.  Driver  himself  believes  in  the  prediction  of 
just  such  events  by  both  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  He  admits,  for 
instance,  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  Isaiah  xxxix.  5-7;  but  this 
passage  contains  a  prediction  of  the  deportation  of  the  Jews  to 
Babylon.  Now,  this  event  did  not  occur  for  more  than  one  hun- 
dred years,  and  so  belonged  to  the  distant  future.  And  let  it  be 
noticed  further,  tliat  there  was  nothing  either  in  the  political  or 
moral  situation  to  suggest,  still  less  to  justify,  the  occurrence  of  a 
deportation  to  this  particular  place.,  though  that  was  evidently  of 
the  very  essence  of  the  prediction.  Again,  Dr.  Driver  admits 
that  Jeremiah  xxv.  11-12,  is  from  the  hand  of  Jeremiah.'  This 
contains  a  prediction  of  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
It  was  uttered  something  like  seventy  years  before  that  event, 
and  so  belongs  to  the  distant  future.  And  here  again,  as  in  the 
previous  case,  there  was  nothing  in  the  political  or  moral  situa- 
tion, as  it  presented  itself  to  the  eyes  of  Jeremiah  or  his  contem- 

'  Introduction  to  tlie  Literature  of  the  Old  Tettament,  page  244. 


192  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

poraries,  to  suggest,  still  less  to  justify,  the  expectation  of  the 
occurrence  of  such  an  event..  The  language  is  either  a  ^^vaticm- 
iurn  ex  evening''  or  a  prediction  of  a  definite  event  belonging  to 
the  distant  future,  and  in  the  sense  above  defined,  beyond  the 
time's  horizon  of  the  prophet  who  uttered  it.  Dr.  Driver  holds 
it  to  be  the  latter. 

(c7.)  He  does  not  deny  it  upon  the  ground  that  the  proplietic 
writings  "supply  no  analogy  for  such  a  sustained  transference  to 
the  future  as  would  be  implied  if  these  chapters  were  by  Isaiah, 
or  for  the  detailed  and  definite  description  of  the  circumstances 
of  a  distant  age."  He  urges  this  as  an  objection  against  the  Isai- 
anic  authorship  of  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.,  but  not  against  that  of  these 
chapters.  Doubtless  he  had  a  reason  for  this,  and  certainly  the 
most  obvious  reason  is  that  he  himself  perceived  that,  if  laid,  the 
objection  could  not  be  sustained. 

{e.)  He  does  not  deny  it  because  his  scholarship  has  led  him  to 
the  discovery  of  any  deficiency,  defects,  or  conflicts  in  the  exter- 
nal evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters.  He  admits 
that  the  external  evidence,  such  as  it  is,  is  wholly  in  favor  of  the 
Isaianic  authorship  of  these  chapters.  He  admits  that  in  this  re- 
spect, at  least,  they  stand  upon  exactly  the  same  footing  as  that 
of  the  first  twelve  chapters,  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  which  he  him- 
self allows.  Hence,  his  rejection  of  the  genuineness  of  chapters 
xiii.  and  xiv.  is  confessedly  in  the  face  of  the  external  evidence. 

These  points  are  negative  in  form,  but,  unless  we  are  greatly 
mistaken,  they  will  be  found  to  be  full  of  positive  significance.  We 
bespeak  for  them  the  careful  consideration  of  every  reader.  We 
have  been  at  the  pains  to  state  them — First :  merely  as  a  matter  of 
justice  to  Dr.  Driver.  If  any  merit  attaches  to  retaining  one's 
belief  in  the  supernatural  and  in  predictive  prophecy ;  if  any  merit 
attaches  to  the  bold  avowal  of  such  a  belief  in  the  face  of  the  op- 
positions of  this  naturalistic  age,  then  this  distinguished  scholar 
should  have  the  credit  for  it.  Conservative  writers  who  for  any 
reason  misconceive  or  misrepresent  his  position  here  only  injure 
their  cause  and  themselves,  as  well  as  do  a  gross  injustice  to  Dr. 
Driver.  It  matters  not  that  Dr.  Driver  is  not  always  self-consist- 
ent.    Few  of  us  are.     It   matters  not  that  he  holds  views  aud 


DK.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.       193 

adopts  methods  upon  other  points  that  are  dangerous.  Upon  the 
particular  point  now  under  consideration  he  has,  in  his  latest  book, 
put  himself  upon  record  in  utterances  of  unmistakable  plainness, 
which  commit  him  to  the  position  we  have  indicated  above.  He 
is  unquestionably  entitled  to  the  credit  of  his  position,  and  we  to 
the  benefit  of  it.  Second :  In  order  to  emphasize  a  point  which 
seems  to  us  of  prime  importance,  and  yet  one  which  is  only  too 
frequently  overlooked,  and  that,  too,  by  those  who  can  least  afford 
to  do  so.  It  is  a  sad  fact,  and  yet  one  that  cannot  be  denied,  that 
many  eminent  Old  Testament  scholars  have  lost,  or  are  fast 
losing,  their  faith  in  the  supernatural,  properly  so  called,  and 
along  with  it  their  faith  in  the  existence  of  any  such  thing  as 
predictive  prophecy.  Many  of  the  younger  and  less  discriminat- 
ing minds  among  the  so-called  progressives  and  radicals  are  apt 
to  attribute  this  loss  of  faith  in  the  supernatural  upon  the  part  of 
their  leaders  to  the  vast  oriental  learning,  the  superior  methods 
of  historical  criticism,  together  with  the  greater  intellectual  acu- 
men, freedom,  and  boldness  of  these  trusted  leaders,  and  to  at- 
tribute their  own  loss  of  faith  in  the  supernatural  to  the  fact  that 
they  are,  at  least  relativel}^  to  their  youth  and  opportunities,  far 
in  advance  of  the  conservative  herd  in  these  same  respects.  But 
as  regards  the  leaders,  such  a  case  as  that  of  Dr.  Driver,  even 
standing  by  itself,  would  suggest  that  there  is  some  mistake 
somewhere  in  this  conclusion.  Few  will  be  disposed  to  challenge 
the  extent  and  accuracy  of  liis  learning  in  the  Old  Testament 
field,  or  his  intellectual  acumen  and  discipline.  He  follows,  too, 
the  most  approved  methods  of  criticism,  and  yet  he  retains  his 
faith  in  the  supernatural.  As  regards  the  flattering  view  which 
these  neophytes  take  of  their  own  attainments,  it  will  be  enough,  at 
present,  to  say  that  it  is  more  soothing  to  their  vanity  than  indi- 
cative of  their  self-knowledge  or  their  discrimination.  This  above 
all  others  is  a  time  for  every  honest-minded,  brave-hearted  lover 
of  truth  among  our  younger  scholars  to  distrust  himself  and  to 
search  into  his  motives.  When  the  announcement,  "Ze  roi  est 
mortf''  has  gone  forth,  it  is  easy  enough  to  shout,  "  Yive  le  roif^ 
This,  however,  is  not  the  shout  of  freemen,  but  of  those  who  ex- 
change one  master  for  another.     For  ourselves,  we  see  no  advan- 


194  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY, 

tage  that  the  new  traditionalism  has  over  the  old.  The  essential 
characteristics  of  each  are  the  same.  They  are  indolence,  cow- 
ardice, and  a  cringing  subservience  to  authority.  Better  to  follow 
the  counsel  of  the  fearless  old  apostle,  "  Prove  all  things.  Hold 
fast  that  which  is  good."  But,  third :  we  have  been  at  tlie  pains 
to  call  attention  to  these  points  in  order,  if  possible,  to  eliminate 
certain  irrelevant  issues  from  this  discussion.  If  we  are  to  judge 
intelligently  of  the  soundness  of  Dr.  Driver's  conclusion,  we 
must  be  willing  to  take  whatever  pains  are  necessary  in  order  to 
get  clearly  before  us  the  ground,  the  only  ground,  upon  which 
that  conclusion  rests,  or  can  rest.  Let  it  be  constantly  borne  in 
mind,  then,  that — AYlien  Dr.  Driver  admits  that  God  did  from 
time  to  time  reveal  the  future  to  his  servants  the  prophets,  he 
virtually  admits  that,  looking  merely  at  the  abstract  possibilities 
of  the  case,  apart  from  the  evidence  as  it  relates  to  this  particular 
case,  God  might  have  put  these  chapters  in  the  mouth  of  Isaiah. 
This  is  not  all.  Dr.  Driver's  admissions  here  would  seem  to  com- 
pel him  to  go  further,  and  to  admit  that,  proven  a  need  for  such  a 
message  as  the  one  contained  in  these  chapters,  upon  the  part  of 
the  contemporaries  of  Isaiah,  then,  in  connection  with  the  exter- 
nal evidence,  we  would  have  strong,  or,  rather,  unimpeachable, 
grounds  for  admitting  their  Isaianic  authorship.  At  least,  that  is 
the  way  in  which  he  himself  seeks  to  establish  the  Isaianic  au- 
thorship of  chapters  i.-xii.  What  he  denies  is  not  the  possibility, 
but  the  propriety,  of  God's  putting  such  a  message  as  that  con- 
tained in  these  chapters  in  the  mouth  of  Isaiah.  This,  as  we  shall 
see,  constitutes  the  very  core  of  his  oV)jection  to  the  view  that 
they  proceeded  from  Isaiah.  Some  may  think  that  this  raises  a 
question  of  no  less  diflBculty  tlian  delicacy.  Certainly,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  so  many  of  God's  ways  are  absolutely  inscrutal)le  to 
finite  minds,  it  becomes  us  to  be  slow  and  cautious  in  asserting 
that  the  impropriety  of  such  a  message  as  this  in  the  mouth  of 
Isaiah  is  so  great  that  God  could  not  have  put  it  there.  Mucli  in 
such  a  case  depends  upon  one's  standpoint,  and  it  is  not  always 
easy  for  us  to  ascertain,  or  even  duly  to  appreciate,  the  divine 
standpoint.  True,  Dr.  Driver  might  say  tliat  the  question,  after 
all,  is  not  of  any  great  difficulty  or  delicacy,  but  resolves  itself 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII,  AND  XIV.      195 

into  striking  the  balance  between  two  probabilities,  a  task  to  which 
even  ordinary  minds  are  equal.  Is  it  more  probable  that  the  falli- 
ble human  tradition  which  assigns  these  chapters  to  Isaiah  is  in 
error,  or  that  the  indications  in  the  body  of  the  prophecy  itself, 
which  seem  to  make  it  only  suitable  to  a  later  age,  are  mislead- 
ing? It  will  be  observed,  however,  that,  even  when  the  question 
is  stated  thus,  it  resolves  itself  into  one  as  to  the  suitableness  or 
propriety  of  such  a  message  as  this  in  the  mouth  of  Isaiah.  Let 
the  reader  bear  this  in  mind  as  we  proceed. 

Let  him  also  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  Dr.  Driver  does 
not  allege  the  length  of  time  which  elapsed  between  the  utter- 
ance of  the  prophecy  contained  in  these  chapters  and  its  fulfil- 
ment as  an  objection  against  their  Isaianic  authorship.  If  at 
times  Dr.  Driver  seems  a  little  confused  and  vacillating  in  deal- 
ing with  this  point,  it  need  not  disturb  us.  For  even  if  he  were 
disposed  to  base  an  objection  upon  the  matter  of  time,  he  is,  by 
his  own  admissions,  debarred  from  doing  so.  As  we  have  seen, 
he  admits  that  Jeremiah  predicted  the  return  from  captivity  sev- 
enty years  before  its  occurrence.  He  also  admits  that  Isaiah 
predicted  the  exile  more  than  one  hundred  years  before  it  took 
place.  How,  then,  could  he  reasonably  maintain  that  Isaiah  could 
not  have  predicted  the  return  from  exile,  when  that  event  lay 
only  seventy  years  farther  in  the  future.  Seventy  years — why, 
what  are  they  among  so  many  ?  The  time  factor  can  only  enter 
into  our  problem  as  it  bears  upon  the  question  of  thneliness.  Let 
it  be  remembered,  then,  that  Dr.  Driver's  objection  to  the  Isaianic 
authorship  of  these  chapters  hinges  not  upon  the  question  of 
time,  but  simply  and  solely  upon  that  of  timeliness.  He  maintains 
that  in  the  mouth  of  Isaiah  these  chapters  would  have  been  "  born 
out  of  due  time";  and,  so,  would  have  served  no  useful  purpose. 

While  many  would  urge  the  definiteness  and  detail  of  descrip- 
tion of  these  chapters  as  against  their  Isaianic  authorship,  let  it  be 
remembered  that  Dr.  Driver  does  not,  and,  we  may  add,  cannot. 
True,  the  objection,  if  urged,  would  be  utterly  destitute  of  weight. 
The  prophecy  does  not  contain  a  definite  and  detailed  description 
of  the  things  predicted.  On  the  contrary,  while  the  picture  pre- 
sented is  vivid,  the  terms  employed  in  painting  it  are  of  the  most 


196  THE  PKESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

general  kind.  Granted  tliat  the  event  of  a  return  from  exile 
bad  been  revealed  to  Isaiali  in  its  naked  simplicity;  granted 
that  lie  had  poetic  genius  at  all  commensurate  with  his  reputa- 
tion, and  the  picture  here  drawn  of  the  downfall  of  Babj-lon 
might  easily  have  proceeded  from  him.  The  reference  to  the 
Medes  as  the  instruments  in  executing  the  divine  vengeance 
(xii.  17)  is  the  only  thing  approaching  definiteness  of  detail  in 
either  chapter.  But,  if  any  one  think  that  it  is  inappropriate  for 
God  to  descend  to  such  definiteness  of  detail  in  revealing  the 
future,  if  any  regard  such  definiteness  of  detail  as  doing  violence 
to  the  "  analogy  of  prophecy,"  we  should  not  forget  that  there 
■  lies  ready  to  our  hand  that  ever-easy  to  be  invoked  hypothesis  of 
an  interpolation.  We  confess  that  we  do  not  admire  the  haste 
with  which  many  resort  to  this  suspiciously  subservient  hy- 
pothesis. To  us  it  looks  too  much  like  quack  criticism.-  Still,  it 
is  the  vogue  just  at  present,  the  panacea  of  those  who  have 
foregone  conclusions  to  establish  in  the  face  of  stubborn  facts. 
Why  then,  if  need  there  be,  should  it  not  be  applied  to  this  single 
verse  rather  than  to  the  prophecy  as  a  whole  ?  What  surgeon  in 
his  senses  would  think  of  cutting  off  a  healthy  arm  in  order, 
foi-sooth,  to  get  rid  of  a  small  wart  upon  the  extremity  of  the 
little  finger  ?  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  such  a  procedure  in 
criticism,  in  surgery  it  would  be  pronounced  wanton  butchery. 
But,  we  say  again,  that  whatever  objection  others  might  urge 
upon  this  score,  Dr.  Driver  can  offer  none.  For,  has  he  not 
admitted  that  a  prediction  of  the  distant  future  may  be  definite 
as  to  the  event  predicted,  definite  as  to  the  place  wliere  the  event 
is  to  occur,  definite  as  to  the  time  within  wliich  it  is  to  occur  ? 
How,  then,  can  he  deny  that  it  may  also  be  definite  as  to  the 
])er6ons  througli  whose  instrumentality  it  is  to  be  effected?  No, 
Dr.  Driver's  objection  might  be  summed  up  in  two  words — cui 
lo7w?  Wliy  sliould  Isaiah  reveal  to  the  men  of  his  generation 
an  event  that  was  not  to  occur  until  after  they  and  their  children 
and  their  children's  children  had  all  gone  to  their  long  home? 
What  profit  is  there  in  such  prophecies  for  those  to  whom  they 
are  primarily  addressed  ?  The  event  predicted  is  too  remote,  and 
the   persons   mentioned  by  name    too   utterly  unknown   even  to 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.   AND  XIV.       197 

awaken  tlie  curiosity  of  Isaiah's  contemporaries.  The  historical 
situation  being  what  it  was  in  Isaiali's  day,  Dr.  Driver  holds  that 
the  terms  of  tliis  prophecy  would  have  been  meaningless,  and 
hence  necessarily  useless,  had  it  been  uttered  in  the  ears  of 
Isaiah's  contemporaries. 

In  order  that  we  may  have  the  real  issue,  the  single  issue, 
involved  in  Dr.  Driver's  objection  clearly  before  our  minds,  it  will 
be  useful  for  us  to  press  our  analysis  one  step  further.  Let  it  be 
understood,  then,  that  Dr.  Driver's  position  as  to  the  non-Isaianic 
authorsliip  of  these  chapters  is  not  to  be  referred  to  amj  light 
which  he,  more  than  another,  has  upon  this  special  point,  such  as 
might  be  supposed  to  belong  to  him  in  view  of  his  admitted  pre- 
eminence in  Semitic  studies,  and  his  acquaintance  with  the  results 
of  modern  archaeological  research.  It  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
new  translation  of  the  Hebrew.  No  more  can  it  be  traced  to  any- 
thing new  in  his  statement  of  the  historical  environment.  We 
should  not,  then,  permit  our  judgment  to  be  blinded  by  the  halo 
which  Dr.  Driver's  eminent  ability  and  learning  are  apt  to  throw 
around  any  opinion  to  which  he  may  lend  the  sanction  of  his 
name.  It  should  be  understood  that  we  have  to  do  mainly,  if  not 
merely,  with  certain  preconceptions  of  Dr.  Driver  as  to  the  pro- 
priety, the  timeliness,  the  utility,  of  such  a  prediction  as  this,  if 
attributed  to  Isaiah. 

The  real  centre  and  core  of  his  objection  to  the  Isaianic  author- 
ship of  these  chapters  is,  that  "  no  intelligible  purpose  would  be 
subserved  by  Isaiah's  announcing  to  the  generation  of  Hezekiah 
an  occurrence  lying  like  this  in  the  distant  future,  and  having  no 
bearing  upon  contemporary  interests."  It  is  true  that  he  appeals 
to  the  analogy  of  prophecy,  and  to  the  internal  evidence  which  the 
prophecy  is  supposed  to  furnish  of  its  exilic  date.  It  is  true,  also, 
that  he  undertakes  to  show  that  the  Babylon  of  these  chapters  is 
not  the  Babylon  of  Isaiah's  day,  and  further,  that  Isaiah  had  no 
motive  for  such  a  prediction  as  they  contain.  But  all  of  these 
points  are,  after  all,  merely  subordinate  and  ancillary  to  the  posi- 
tion noted  above.  They  derive  their  significance  from  the  sup- 
port which  they  are  supposed  to  lend  and  the  weight  they  are 
supposed  to  give  to  that  position.     We  shall,  as  we  proceed,  notice 


198  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

these  points,  but  we  wish  the  reader  to  understand  in  advance 
that,  though  Dr.  Driver  spends  his  main  strength  upon  them,  they 
do  not  constitute  the  cutting  edge  of  his  contention  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  chapters.  Dr.  Driver,  we  will  not  say  art- 
fully, but  unfortunately,  gives  such  prominence  to  these  subordi- 
nate points  that  the  reader  is  apt  to  overlook  the  fact  that  Dr. 
Driver's  real  difficulty  lies  not  in  the  external  evidence,  nor  in  any 
specific  tangible  feature  of  the  internal  evidence,  but  rather  in 
this,  that  it  is  contrary  to  his  own  internal  sense  of  the  fitness  of 
things  that  Isaiah  should  bother  himself  or  his  contemporaries  with 
events  that  were  not  to  occur  until  they  and  their  children  had 
been  long  dead,  events,  accordingly  (let  the  reader  mark  tlie  vo7i- 
sequitur)^  which  could  have  no  bearing  upon  contemporary  in- 
terest. 

II.  "We  proceed  next  to  notice  certain  propositions  which  Dr. 
Driver  lays  down,  and  upon  which  he  seems  to  lay  great  stress, 
propositions  which,  while  they  are  in  the  main  correct  in  them- 
selves, yet  lend  no  support  to  his  view  as  to  the  non-Isaianic 
authorship  of  these  particular  chapters,  because  of  the  fact  that 
they  are  irrelevant,  or,  at  least,  are  not  shown  to  be  relevant,  to 
that  issue. 

These  propositions  will  be  found,  we  think,  to  furnish  Dr. 
Driver  with  the  major  premise  of  his  argument.  If  our  analysis 
of  his  discussion  is  correct,  that  premise  is :  every  genuine  'prophecy 
must  hear  directly  upon  the  interests  of  the  contemporaries  of  the 
prophet  from  whom  it pwyorts  to  come.  We  comment  upon  the 
propositions  about  to  be  given,  for  two  reasons:  Firsts  because 
while  all  of  them  arc  true  in  a  general  sense,  some,  if  not  all,  will 
need  more  or  less  modification  before  they  will  express  the  whole 
or  the  exact  truth.  Second y  because  Dr.  Driver  seems  to  intimate 
that  they  are  either  denied,  ignored,  or  overlooked  by  those  who 
accept  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  these  chapters.  Such,  however, 
is  by  no  means  the  case.  We  impeach  tlie  correctness  not  of  his 
major,  but  of  his  minor  premise.  The  latter,  as  already  intimated, 
is :  the  prophecy  of  these  chapters  has  no  intelligible  relation  to  or 
bearing  upon  the  interests  of  those  who  were  contemporary  with 
Isaiah. 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.       199 

First:  then,  Dr.  Driver  says':  "The  prophet  is,  in  the 
first  instance,  the  teacher  of  his  own  generation:'  Put  the  em- 
phasis upon  the  words,  "  in  the  first  instance,''  where  it  clearly 
belongs  by  right,  and  this  becomes  a  simple  elementary  truth 
which  no  one  denies.  The  only  conceivable  reason  for  referring 
to  it  here  is  to  produce,  if  possible,  the  impression  that,  had  Isaiah 
uttered  these  words,  he  would  not  have  been  fulfilling  his  func- 
tion as  a-  teacher  of  his  own  age.  This  impression,  however, 
would  only  be  correct,  provided  this  prophecy  contained  no  pro- 
fitable lessons  for  the  people  of  Isaiah's  own  time.  This  is  a 
proposition  wliich  Dr.  Driver  did  not  seem  to  think  it  worth  his 
while  to  trouble  himself  with  proving.  He  does  not  prove  it, 
though  he  sometimes  asserts  it,  and  then  again,  as  here,  suggests 
it.  He  does  not  even  try  to  prove  it.  While,  then,  we  may 
admit  the  correctness  of  the  statement,  we  deny  its  relevancy, 
until  it  has  been  proved  that  these  chapters  in  the  mouth  of 
Isaiah  would  have  been  without  instruction  for  his  contemporaries. 

Second:  In  the  same  connection  Dr.  Driver  adds :  "  Hence  it  is 
a  fundamental  principle  of  prophecy  that  the  historical  situation 
of  the  prophet  should  be  the  basis  of  his  prediction."  Here, 
again,  there  can  be  no  exception  to  what  is  said,  provided  only 
that  the  emphasis  be  placed  upon  the  proper  word,  and  that  word 
is  clearly  ''lasis,"  though  we  submit  that  " occasio?i"  would  be 
preferable,  because  less  ambiguous.  All,  we  suppose,  are  pre- 
pared to  admit  that  the  prophet's  historical  environment  must 
furnish,  so  to  speak,  the  starting  point  of  all  his  predictions, 
otherwise  his  utterances  would  have  been  meaningless  riddles  to 
the  men  of  his  own  day,  riddles  that  would  scarcely  have  awakened 
sufiicient  curiosity  to  have  insured  their  preservation  and  per- 
petuation for  the  benefit  of  those  whom  they  more  particularly 
concerned.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  this,  however,  and  quite  a 
different  thing  to  assert,  as  Dr.  Driver  seems,  inconsistently,  to 
imply,  that  prophecy  must  have  its  goal  as  well  as  its  starting 
point  in  the  prophet's  own  present.  If  this  were  true,  where 
would  be  the  room  for,  or  what  the  use  of  predictive  prophecy  ? 
Predictive  prophecy,  while  it  ever  takes  its  rise  in  the  present, 

Ubid.,  p.  126. 


200  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY, 

also  ever  projects  itself,  and  aims  to  carry  the  thoughts  of  its  con- 
temporaries forward  with  it  into  the  future.  It  is  like  a  bird  of 
passage,  whose  tuneful  notes  first  strike  the  ears  and  cheer  the 
hearts  of  those  from  among  whom  it  takes  its  flight,  but,  in  so 
doing,  only  remind  them  that  the  full  sweetness  of  that  liquid 
melody  is  not  for  themselves,  but  for  those  in  other,  happier 
climes,  where  the  swift-winged  songster  is  to  find  its  final  home. 
We  are  persuaded  that  the  underlying  fallacy  of  Dr.  Driver's 
thinking  here  and  elsewhere  is,  that  it  is  only  the  past  and  the 
present  which  are  competent  to  teach  the  present.  We  hope  to 
show  that  the  future,  where  her  voice  can  be  heard,  even  though 
it  be  but  indistinctly,  is  no  less  potent  a  teacher  of  the  present 
than  is  the  past. 

Third:  On  page  86  it  is  said :  "It  is  the  very  essence  of  pro- 
phecy to  address  itself  to  the  needs  of  the  prophet's  own  age." 
This  is  true.  Hence  Dr.  Driver  should  have  been  at  more  pains 
to  give  us  a  clear  view  of  his  conceptions  of  the  needs  of  Isaiah's 
day,  as  related,  or  rather  as  unrelated,  to  the  contents  of  this  pro- 
phecy. He  has  done  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  goes  off  in  a  some- 
what inconsequent  manner  to  show  that  Isaiah's  other  utterances 
stand  related  to  the  needs  of  his  own  day,  leaving  the  impression 
upon  the  reader's  mind  tiiat  such  is  not  the  case  with  the 
contents  of  these  chapters.  This,  however,  is  manifestly  the 
very  point  at  issue,  and  ought  to  have  been  proved  rather 
than  introduced  'into  the  reader's  mind  by  implication.  It 
by  no  means  follows,  as  the  day  the  night,  that  because  the  events 
predicted  in  these  chapters  were  not  to  occur  for  something  like 
two  hundred  years,  therefore  the  prediction  of  them  could  not 
have  been  called  for  that  length  of  time  before  their  occurrence. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  Dr.  Driver's  argument,  if  it  can  be 
called  such,  limps  painfully,  if  it  proceeds,  as  it  seems  to  proceed, 
upon  the  assumption  that  because  the  prophe(;y  in  these  chapters 
would  meet  a  felt  want  of  those  living  about  the  close  of  the 
Babylonian  exile,  therefore  it  could  not  have  met  a  felt  need  of 
those  living  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  more  years  before  that 
event.  If  any  such  impression  has  found  a  temporary  lodgment 
in  his  mind,  he  has  deceived  himself. 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.      201 

Fourth :  Again,  in  the  same  connection  he  adds :  "  It  was  the 
prophet's  office  to  preach  to  his  own  contemporaries,  to  announce 
to  them  the  judgments  or  the  consolations,  which  arose  out  of  the 
circumstances  of  their  time,  to  interpret  for  them  their  own 
history."  Was  there,  then,  no  consolation  in  the  prediction  of 
these  (jhapters  for  those  living  in  the  time  of  Isaiah  ?  It  seems 
to  be  implied  that  there  was  not.  Is  the  implication  a  fair  one, 
however?  It  may  be,  but  Dr.  Driver  has  furnished  no  evidence 
of  the  fact.  Then,  again,  it  may  not  be,  and  in  that  event  Dr. 
Driver's  profound  remark  is  not  only  irrelevant,  but  positively 
misleading.  Eat,  again,  was  it  not  the  prophet's  office  to  interpret 
for  his  contemporaries  their  past  and  their  future,  as  well  as  their 
present  history  ?  Dr.  Driver,  as  we  have  seen,  believes  in  predic- 
tive prophecy,  but  what  other  ofiice  has  such  prophecy  except  to 
interpret  for  them  their  future  history  ?  And  if  this  be  true,  how 
does  it  happen  that  Dr.  Driver  feels  himself  at  liberty  to  assume 
that  the  prediction  of  deliverance  from  Babylonian  exile  would 
be  without  interest,  significance  or  profit  for  the  contemporaries  of 
Isaiah?  A  little  proof  upon  this  point  would  go  much  further 
with  thinking  men  than  any  amount  of  scholarly  assertion  or 
assumption. 

Fifth:  Again,  on  page  86  it  is  said:  "To  base  a  promise  upon 
a  condition  of  things  not  yet  existent,  and  without  any  point  of 
contact  with  the  circumstances  or  situation  of  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed,  is  alien  to  the  genius  of  prophecy."  We  would  trem- 
ble before  the  presence  of  "the  genius  of  prophecy"  here  invoked 
to  bolster  up  a  weak  cause,  but  we  cannot  repress  a  smile  at  the 
imposition  which  her  learned  conjurer  has  practiced  upon  himself 
in  her  name.  Let  us  ask,  is  it  the  non-existence  of  the  condition 
of  things,  or  is  it  the  lack  of  contact  between  it  and  the  prophet's 
circumstances  and  situation  which  presents  the  difficulty  to  Dr. 
Driver's  mind  in  the  present  case?  If  the  latter,  then  we  must 
insist  that  Dr.  Driver's  mere  assertion,  while  exceedingly  weighty, 
is  not  of  the  nature  of  proof.  We  venture  to  think  that,  Dr. 
Driver  himself  being  judge,  there  is  a  most  important  point  of 
contact  between  this  prediction  of  deliverance  and  the  situation 
in  Isaiah's  own  time.     But,  if  it  be  the  non-existence  of  the  con- 


202  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

dition  which  is  the  bug-bear,  then  we  confess  to  a  feeling  of  sur- 
prise that  Dr.  Driver  should  take  this  position.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered that  he  admits  that  Jeremiah  predicted  a  return  from 
exile.  Was  not  this  conditioned  upon  the  going  into  exile,  and 
remaining  there  until  there  were  sentiments  of  repentance  awak- 
ened in  the  hearts  of  the  people  ?  Was  it  not  conditioned,  also, 
upon  the  rise  and  victorious  career  of  the  Medo-Persian  empire  ? 
Here,  then,  is  at  least  one  case  in  which  a  promise  was  based  upon 
a  condition  of  things  not  yet  existent,  viz.,  the  captivity,  and  a 
state  of  repentance  upon  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
breaking  of  the  power  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians. Ezekiel  does  the  same  thing,  and  so  do  all  the  pro- 
phets, beginning  with  Samuel  and  those  who  follow  after. 
Evidently  what  Dr.  Driver  had  in  mind  was  something  like 
this:  "To  base  a  promise  upon  a  condition  of  things  not  yet 
conceived,  contemplated,  or  announced  as  going  to  exist,  is  alien 
to  the  genius  of  prophecy."  But,  if  he  liad  thought  it  worth  his 
while  to  say  this,  who  would  have  thought  it  worth  while  to 
notice  it?  Should  it  be  said,  however,  that  the  Babylon  of  this 
prophecy  was  not  conceived,  contemplated,  or  announced  as  going 
to  exist,  at  the  time  it  is  alleged  to  have  been  promulgated,  then 
we  will  have  somewhat  to  say  in  reply  later  on.  We  will  only 
add  here  that  we  regard  Dr.  Driver  as  right  in  saying  that  "  it  is 
arbitrary  to  suppose  (as  has  been  done)  that  Babylon  may  have 
been  mentioned  by  Isaiah  as  the  representative  of  Assyria." 

III.  We  come,  now,  to  examine  Dr.  Driver's  proof  of  his  minor 
premise.  That  premise,  as  will  be  remembered,  was :  the  prophecy 
of  these  chapters  has  no  intelligible  relation  to,  or  hearing  upon, 
the  interests  of  those  who  were  contemporary  icith  Isaiah. 

1.  The  first  proposition  which  Dr.  Driver  lays  down,  pre- 
sumably in  support  of  this  position,  is  that  the  contents  of  these 
chapters  are  "  unrelated  to  IsaiaVs  own  ageP  As  the  italics  are 
Dr.  Driver's,  we  presume  that  he  regards  this  proposition  as  one 
of  importance. 

(1.)  The  first  comment  that  we  have  to  offer  here  is,  that  Dr. 
Driver's  language  lacks  clearness.  Worse,  it  is  characterized  by 
a  vicious  ambiguity.     It  may  mean  any  one  of  several  things.     It 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.      203 

may  mean,  for  instance,  that  our  prophecy  is  unrelated  to  the 
needs  of  the  men  of  Isaiah's  time.     If  so,  it  is  merely  an  empliatic 
assertion  of  what  ought  to  be  proved.     For,  if  this  be  his  mean- 
ing, it  is  surely  lame  proof  to  say  that  "the  Jews  are  not  warned, 
as  Isaiah  miglit  warn  them  (xxxix.  6)  against  the  folly  of  conclud- 
ing  an  alliance   with    Babylon,  or   reminded   of    the    disastrous 
consequences  which  such  an  alliance  might  entail ;  nor  are  they 
even  represented,  as  in  Jeremiah,  as  threatened  with  impending 
exile';  they  are  represented  as  in  exile  and  as  about  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  it."     All  this  may  be  true,  and  still,  as  we  hope  to 
show,  the  prophecy  might  have  had  direct  and  important  bearings 
upon  the  personal  needs  of  those  who  lived  in  Isaiah's  day.     We 
conceive,   however,   that    the    more    probable    meaning   of    Dr. 
Driver,  when   he  says    that  this   prophecy   stands  unrelated  to 
Isaiah's  own  age,  is  that  it  is  unrelated  to  the  historical  environ- 
ment of   Isaiah  and  his  contemporaries,  that  it  reflects  a  totally 
different  historical  situation,  one  in  which  the  actual  and  relative 
positions  of  the  several  actors,  as  portrayed  in  our  prophecy,  dif- 
fer entirely  from  those  which  obtained  in   the  time  of   Isaiah. 
We  infer  that  this  is  his  meaning,  because  in  this  connection,  and 
apparently  as  bearing  upon  this  proposition,   we  are  told   that 
"his"  {i.  e.,  Isaiah's)  "prophecies"  (i.  e.,  those  found  in  the  first 
twelve  chapters  of  the  book)  "are  replete  with  allusions  to  con- 
temporary  history,  to  Ephraini,  Damascus,  and  the   Assyrians; 
that  history  is  the  foundation  upon  which  his  grandest  predic- 
tions rest.     Here,  on  the  other  hand,  all  the  allusions  are  not  to 
Assyria,  but  to  Bcibylon,  not  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
who  sought   Hezekiah's  friendship,  which  was  known  to  Isaiah 
(xxxix.),  but  the  Babylon  of  the  exile,  which  held  the  Jews  in 
cruel  bondage  (xiv.  2,  3),  and  was  shortly  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
Medes    (xiii.    17)."     Assuming,    then,    that    we    have    correctly 
divined  Dr.  Driver's  meaning,  our  next  remark  is — 

(2.)  In  the  light  of  his  explanation,  and  more  especially  of  his 
italics,  the  objection  we  are  now  considering  seems  singularly, 
and  (we  mean  no  disrespect)  even  ludicrously,  irrelevant.  The 
prophecy,  be  it  rememl)ered,  relates,  no  matter  who  wrote  it,  to 
the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  their  exile  in  Babylon.     And 


204  THE  PRESBYTERIAN   QUARTERLY, 

yet  Dr.  Driver  tells  ns,  not  only  with  gravity,  but  with  emphasis, 
that  in  these  chapters  the  Jews  "are  represented  as  in  exiW'' ; 
and,  more  astonishing  still,  that  "  the  allusions  are  not  to  Assyria, 
but  to  Bahjlon.''''  This  may  be  true,  but  it  can  scarcely  be  con- 
sidered at  all  remarkable.  The  remarkable  thing,  it  strikes  us, 
would  have  been  for  Isaiah  or  any  one  else  to  predict  a  deliver- 
ance from  exile  without  representing  those  whose  deliverance  was 
predicted  as  being  in  exile,  or  to  predict  a  deliverance  from  exile 
in  Babylon  without  alluding  to  Babylon.  To  require  such  a  feat 
of  Isaiah  or  of  any  other  prophet  would  be  worse  than  to  require 
bricks  to  be  made  without  straw.  Dr.  Driver,  it  seems  to  us, 
might,  with  a  far  greater  show  of  reason,  have  laid  the  emphasis 
upon  the  words  '■'■not  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladanr  Had 
he  done  so,  he  would  have  conveyed  some  such  idea  as  this:  The 
relative  and  actual  positions  of  the  several  parties  concerned  are 
so  different,  as  set  forth  in  these  chapters,  from  what  they  were 
in  the  time  of  Isaiah,  that  such  a  picture  as  is  here  given  would 
have  been  meaningless,  and  so,  useless,  to  his  contemporaries. 
The  Bal)ylon  of  Merodach-Baladan  was  upon  terms  of  friendship 
with  Judah.  The  two  kingdoms  stood  upon  very  much  the  same 
footing  as  respects  political  importance  and  available  resources. 
If  anything,  Judah  had  the  advantage  in  all  these  particulars. 
Kot  only  so,  but  the  actual  position  of  Babylon  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah  was  that  of  an  Assyrian  dependency.  It  was  Assyria,  and 
not  Babylon,  that  filled  the  political  horizon,  and  absorbed  the 
universal  attention  of  thinking  men.  Not  for  one  hundred  years 
after  the  time  of  Merodach-Baladan  did  Babylon  rise  to  the  posi- 
tion of  what  we  would  call  a  first-class  power.  During  the  whole 
of  Isaiah's  lifetime  it  continued  to  be  relatively,  if  not  absolutely, 
insignificant.  But  all  this  is  reversed  in  our  prophecy.  Here 
"Babylon  is  represented  as  owning  the  empire  of  the  world  (xiii. 
19;  xiv.  6f.),  which  it  exercises  in  particular  (xiv.  1,  2)  by  hold- 
ing the  Jews  in  exile."  Now,  this  is  true,  and  the  difliculty  which 
it  presents  to  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.,  if 
not  insurmountable,  is,  at  least,  plausible.  Assuming,  then,  that 
we  have  at  last  discovered  the  real  point  of  Dr.  Driver's  objec- 
tion, and  reserving  for  the  present  some  things  we  will  have  to 


DK.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.         205 

say  as  to  its  inherent  irrelevancy  to  the  issues  before  us,  our  next 
remark  is  that — 

(3.)  For  those  who,  with  Dr.  Driver,  admit  the  Isaianic  author- 
ship of  Isaiah  xxxix.,  the  objection  which  we  are  now  considering 
is  robbed  even  of  plausibility.  There  is  a  single  fact  w^hich  has 
evidently  escaped  the  distinguished  Oxonian,  or  he  would  have 
seen  the  futility  of  raising  this  objection  here  after  recognizing 
the  genuineness  of  Isaiah  xxxix. 

We  refer  to  the  fact  that  the  Babylon  of  Isa.  xxxix,  6-9  is  not 
and  cannot  be  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan,  but  it  is  and 
can  he  none  other  than  the  Babylon  of  these  chai^ters  in  minia- 
ture.  It  cannot  be  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan,  because,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan  was  friendly  to 
Judah,  but  the  Babylon  of  Isaiah  xxxix.  is  hostile,  and  holds  the 
Jews  in  exile.  It  cannot  be  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
for  tliat  Babylon  was  upon  a  footing  of  equality  with  Judah,  but 
this  equality  no  longer  exists  between  Judah  and  the  Babylon  of 
Isaiah  xxxix.  It  cannot  be  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan,  for 
that  Babylon  was  a  dependency  of  Assyria,  but  the  Babylon  of 
Isaiah  xxxix.  is  no  dependency  of  Assyria,  unless,  indeed,  the  maid- 
servant is  there  represented  as  playing  the  role  of  mistress,  and 
that,  too,  under  the  very  nose  of  the  mistress  herself,  and  she  a 
jealous  one.  None  of  the  descendants  of  Hezekiah  were  going  to 
be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king  of  Babylon  as  long  as  Assyria 
held  the  reins  of  a  world  empire.  The  rise  of  the  Babylon  of  Mero- 
dach-Baladan to  the  position  of  a  world  empire  might  have  seemed 
incredible  to  the  men  of  Isaiah's  day,  but  Jewish  eunuchs  of 
royal  blood  standing  in  the  palaces  of  the  Babylon  of  Merodach- 
Baladan's  day  would  have  seemed  simply  ludicrous.  The  Baby- 
lon of  Isaiah  xxxix.  cannot  be  the  Babylon  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
because  the  terms  of  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah  xxxix.  indicated  clearly 
enough  to  Hezekiah  that  the  prophet  had  his  eye  upon  a  Babylon 
yet  to  come.  We  can  still  almost  liear  the  sigh  of  relief  with 
which  the  good  Hezekiah  said,  "  There  shall  be  peace  and  truth 
in  my  days."  Evidently  Dr.  Driver  has  not  duly  considered  the 
fact  that  Isaiah,  in  chapter  xxxix.,  points  out  Babylon,  not  only  as 
the  place  where  Judah  is  to  be  carried  into  captivity,  hut  also  as 
14 


206  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

the  power  by  which  she  is  to  be  carried  captive.  Or  else  he  has 
not  duly  considered  what  is  involved  in  such  a  prediction.  The 
fact  is,  that  while  Dr.  Driver  has  made  a  noble  fight  for  impor- 
tant truths,  and  upon  certain  vital  points  has  held  manfully  to  his 
moorings  in  the  face  of  a  well-nigh  overwhelming  flood  of  natu- 
ralism in  high  places — the  fact,  we  say,  is  that  to  be  perfectly 
consistent  he  ought  to  surrender  his  belief  in  the  Isaianic  author- 
ship of  chapter  xxxix.,  or  admit  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  chap- 
ters xiii.,  xiv.  His  warm  friend  and  admirer.  Professor  Cheyne, 
has  quite  recently  twitted  him  in  terms  of  painful  plainness  with 
being  timid  and  vacillating,  and,  unkindest  cut  of  all,  with  being 
out  of  harmony  with  the  consensus  of  modern  scholarship  in  refer- 
ence to  his  views  of  predictive  prophecy  in  general,  and  Isaiah 
xxxix.  in  particular. 

(4.)  But  we  go  further,  and  are  prepared  to  maintain  that,  even 
if  the  Babylon  of  chapters  xiii.,  xiv.  was  not  that  of  Merodach- 
Baladan,  and  the  Babylon  of  chapter  xxxix.  was  that  of  Merodach- 
Baladan,  still  Dr.  Driver  is  no  farther  towards  proving  the  non- 
Isaianic  authorship  of  the  former  than  he  was  before.  As  we 
have  seen,  he  is  unequivocally  committed  to  the  position  that  it  is 
possible  for  a  prophet  to  predict  an  event  belonging  even  to  the 
distant  future.  Where  is  the  relevancy,  then,  in  telling  his 
readers  that  the  Babylon  of  chapters  xiii.,  xiv.  is  not  the  Babylon 
of  Merodach-Baladan  ?  Granted  that  it  is  not,  granted  that  it  is 
the  Babylon  of  Nabopolassar,  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Evil-Merodach, 
personages  of  whom  neither  Isaiah  nor  any  of  his  contemporaries 
ever  dreamed,  still  less  ever  heard,  how  does  this  prove  that  these 
chapters  are  not  from  Isaiah  ?  Clearly  it  is  not  because  God  is 
incompetent  to  reveal  to  his  servant  the  course  of  events  during 
the  times  of  these  kings.  Dr.  Driver  is  as  far  removed  from 
giving  credence  to  such  drivel  as  is  any  one.  But  doul>tless  he 
would  remind  us  that  the  possible,  in  such  a  case,  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  the  measure  of  the  probable,  certainly  not  of  the  proper. 
He  would  remind  us  that  a  prophet  is  not  a  fortune-teller,  but  a 
teacher  sent  from  God,  and  that  the  raison  d'etre  for  each  message 
must  be  sought  in  some  lesson  it  would  convey,  some  need  that  it 
would  meet,  and  the  only  effect  of  such  a  prophecy  as  this  from 


DR.  DRIVER  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  ISAIAH  XIII.  AND  XIV.       207 

the  lips  of  Isaiah  would  have  been  to  produce  a  vacant  stare  upon 
the  faces  of  his  countrymen  and  lead  them  to  ask,  What  is  he 
talking  about  ?     Has  the  poor  fellow  lost  his  wits  ? 
^  As  already  pointed  out,  it  is  apparently  with  a  view  to  estab- 
lishing this  last  proposition  that  Dr.  Driver  informs  us  that  the 
Babylon  of  tliese  chapters  was  not  the  Babylon  of  Merodach- 
Baladan.     But  the  careful  reader  will  have  observed  that  Dr. 
Driver  nowhere  takes  the  pains  to  prove  that,  if  the  Babylon  of 
our  prophecy  is  not  that  of  Merodach-Baladan,  then  it  could  meet 
no  want  of  the  contemporaries  of  Isaiah.     He  seems  to  think  that 
this  is  so  clear  that  it  may  safely  be  taken  for  granted.     But  is  lie 
right  ?     To  answer  this,  permit  us  to  ask  another  question  :    What 
was   the   raison  d'etre  for   the    prediction  of  the    exile,  which, 
according  to  Dr.  Driver,  is  made  in   chapter  xxxix.  ?     Was  it 
uttered  merely  to  wring  with  anguish  the  hearts  of  the  godless, 
incorrigible,^  doomed   multitude  ?     Scarcely.     Their  hearts  were 
not  of  the  kind  that  could  be  so  easily  wrung.     They  were  ever 
ready  to  say,  "Let  us   eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die." 
Was  it  not  rather  mainly  for  the  benefit  of  the  godly,  believing, 
indestructible,  but  still  imperfect,  remnant,  that  their  hearts  might 
be  chastened,  and  so  sanctified  ?     Doubtless  for  their  sakes.     But 
if  this  remnant  could  be  chastened  by  the  prospect  of  an  exile  to 
come  upon  their  posterity  after  they  themselves  were  dead  and  in 
their  graves,  why  might  not  tliey  be  cheered  by  the  prospect  that 
their  posterity  would  be  delivered  from  exile  ?     Had  there  been  a 
prediction  of  exile,  without  one  of  return  from  exile,  might  they 
not  have  fallen  into  blank,  irremediable  despair  ?     Exile  without 
return  would  have  meant  a  perpetual  casting  out  from  the  divine 
favor  and  a  final  dissolution  of  that  covenant  with  God  which  was 
"all  their  hope  and  all  their  desire."     If  there  was  to  be  a  rem- 
nant, godly  and  indestructible,  then,  having  uttered  his  prediction 
of   exile,  Isaiah   was,  as  it  were,  under  necessity  to   predict  a 
return,  even  though  it  should  involve  a  reference  more  or  less  dis- 
tinct to  a  Babylon  difierent  from  that  of  Merodach-Baladan,  for 
the  vital  element,  the  necessary  aliment,  of  holiness,  is  hope ;  de- 
prived of  this,  it  must  die.     And   let  it  be  remembered  that, 
according  to  Dr.  Driver,  if  Isaiah  has  not  predicted  the  return 


208  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

from  exile  i?i  these  chapters,  he  has  not  predicted  it  anywhere, 
la  the  needs  of  the  godly  remnant,  then,  we  find  our  "  nodus 
vindice  dignus.^^  Upon  his  own  principles,  therefore,  what  right 
has  Dr.  Driver  to  deny  the  interposition  of  the  "  vindex "  ?  If 
God  may  put  into  the  moutli  of  his  prophet  a  threat  based  upon 
"  a  condition  of  things  not  yet  existent "  (Isaiah  xxxix.  6  f .),  why 
should  it  be  thought  a  thing  impossible  with  God  to  base  a  pro- 
mise upon  a  condition  of  things  not  yet  existent  ?  We  think 
that  we  may  fairly  claim  to  have  disposed  of  Dr.  Driver's  objec- 
tion, so  far  as  it  rests  upon  this  proposition.  The  further  con- 
sideration of  Dr.  Driver's  minor  premise  must  be  deferred  for 
the  present. 

W.  M.  MoPheeters. 
OnlumMa,  8.  O.  . 


